S Abdul Rehman

Junior Civil Judge

V Add District Complex, Allagadda · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

S Abdul Rehman, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at V Add District Complex, Allagadda, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 24 court orders on record since 2023. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/351/2022

Guda Pulla Reddy vs Pullagura Kumar Reddy

21 Jun 2024

O.S.No.351/2022 1 JCJ Court, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: ALLAGADDA

Present : Sri M.ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Allagadda

Friday, this the 21st day of June, 2024.

O.S.No. 351/2022

Guda Pulla Reddy, S/o.Late Nagi Reddy, age 72 years, R/o.S.Nagulavaram Village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool District.(Now Nandyal District) … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Pullagura Kumar Reddy, S/o.Late Nageswar Reddy, Age 55 years,

2. Racharla Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o.Late Budda Reddy, Age 52 years

3. Kalvatala Gangula, S/o.Sanjirayudu, Age 60 years,

4. Madala Kalavathi, W/o.Sankaraiah, Age 45 years

5. Madala Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Mallikarjuna, Age 60 years All are R/o.S.Nagulavaram Village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool District.(Now Nandyal District) … Defendants

This suit coming on this day for consideration before me in the presence of Sri D.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendants having been called absent, set ex-parte and having stood over for consideration today itself, this court delivered the following:-

// JUDGMENT //

1.This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers, relatives and

O.S.No.351/2022 2 JCJ Court, ALG.

their assignees from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said schedule land, and from causing any type of damage and from making any type of constructions in the schedule land and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :-

The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule land in Sy.No.72/3 to an extent of Ac.0.23 cents situated within revenue limits of S.Nagulavaram Village,

Gospadu Mandal and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land by raising crops in the land and there is a abandoned store room which is part and parcel of the land. The plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule property by way of sale deed bearing Doc.No.4957/2021, dated 29.10.2021 executed by his daughters namely 1. Vanguru Maheswaramma, 2. Dulam Rajeswaramma and 3. G.Manjula Devi @ Manjulamma, since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land till date. Previously, the plaint schedule property was succeded by the plaintiff’s daughters from their maternal grandfather by name Sanjeeva Reddy and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment. It is clearly established that the plaintiff is the only person having every right, title over the schedule land. The revenue authorities after due verification and by recognizing plaintiff’s right, title and possession, issued E-pattadar passbook cum title deed in favour of the plaintiff with

Khata No.448.

It is further submitted that the plaintiff is intended to construct new house by removing the abandoned room. On 14.08.2022, the defendants and their men were high handedly tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule land, and due to the timely intervention of the village elders, the attempt of the defendants was stopped. Since the defendants, their men, followers and relatives are very powerful

O.S.No.351/2022 3 JCJ Court, ALG.

persons in the village and having the support of unruly elements, they may come and will dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule land at any time. Hence this suit.

3.After receipt of summons, the defendants called absent and no representation and hence the defendants set ex-parte.

4.Though the defendants set ex-parte it is for the plaintiff to establish that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

5.Heard the plaintiff’s counsel.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

1.“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?”

2. “To what relief ?”

7.During the trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A6 and also examined one G.Manjula Devi @ Manjulamma as PW.2. Since the defendants set ex-parte no witness is examined and no documents got marked.

8.Issue No.1 :

To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the Original Registered sale deed, dated 29.10.2021, Ex.A2 is the E-Pattadar Passbook stands in the name of

PW.1, Ex.A3 is the Sachivalayam copy of 1B extract, dated 18.08.2022, Ex.A4 is the

Sachivalayam copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1432, Ex.A5 is the Mee-seva copy of

No.3 Adangals – 2 in number for fasli 1427, 1428 and Ex.A6 is the Mee-seva copy of 1B extract, dated 12.03.2018. The Exs.A1 to A6 prima-facie goes to show the title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6 are sufficient to assume the legal possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. To deny the case of the plaintiff, the defendants did

O.S.No.351/2022 4 JCJ Court, ALG.

not came forward, therefore adverse inference is drawn and no option left to the Court except to assume that the case of the plaintiff is true and correct.

In view of the above discussion, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.Issue No.2 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers, relatives and their assignees from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said schedule land, and from causing any type of damage and from making any type of constructions in the schedule land.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21 st of June, 2024.

Sd/-Sri.M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division),

ALLAGADDA.

// Appendix of Evidence // Witnesses examined For Plaintiff :-For Defendants :- P.W.1 :- Guda Pulla Reddy None P.W.2:- G.Manjula Devi @ Manjulamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 is the Original Registered sale deed, dated 29.10.2021.

Ex.A2 is the E-Pattadar Passbook stands in the name of PW.1.

Ex.A3 is the Sachivalayam copy of 1B extract, dated 18.08.2022.

Ex.A4 is the Sachivalayam copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1432.

Ex.A5 is the Mee-seva copy of No.3 Adangals – 2 in number for fasli 1427, 1428.

Ex.A6 is the Mee-seva copy of 1B extract, dated 12.03.2018.

For Defendants : - NIL

Sd/-Sri.M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

J.C.J.,Allagadda.

OS/124/2023

Metla Gunde Rao @ GUndu Rao vs Varada Dasthagiri

21 Jun 2024

O.S.No.124 of 20231JCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::ALLAGADDA

Present:-M.ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),Allagadda.

Dated Friday, the 21stday of June, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 124 of 2023

Between:-

MetlaGunde Rao @ Gundu Rao, Age 75 years, S/o.MetlaJadalaiah, R/o.H.No.1-13 ReddipalleVilalge, RudravaramMandal, Nandyal District. …Plaintiff

Vs.

VaradaDasthagiri, Age 45 years, S/o.RamisettyRangaiah, Business, R/o.H.No.8, PadmataVeedhi, Rudravaram Village and Mandal,

Nandyal District. ...Defendant

*****

This suit is coming before me on 20.06.2024 for consideration in the presence of Sri P.Surya Narayana Reddy, Sri Gouse Moddin and Sri

S.N.Rajeswara Reddy, Learned Counsels for the Plaintiff and the defendant had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,26,306/- [Rs.1,75,666/- + Rs.50,640/-] basing on two Promissory

Notes, dated 30.08.2020 and 10.04.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively together with interest and costs.

O.S.No.124 of 20232JCJ, ALG.

2.Briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, is that: the

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/- from the Plaintiff on 30.08.2020 and 10.04.2021 respectively for his family expenses and executed two Promissory Notes in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% per annum on the 1st promissory note and 36% per annum on the 2nd promissory note either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff, the Defendant has not chosen to repay the amount due on twoPromissory Notes to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to institute the present suit.

3. Summons were served on the defendant through court on 17.04.2023.

The defendant was called absent and there was no representation on behalf of the defendant. Hence, the defendant was set ex-parte on 07.12.2023.

4. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as Pw1. The

Plaintiff, as Pw1, got marked the original suit promissory note dated 30.08.2020 for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant, as Ex.A1 and original suit promissory note dated 10.04.2021 for the amount of Rs.30,000/- executed by the defendant, as Ex.A2.

5. Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination are:

(i)whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

O.S.No.124 of 20233JCJ, ALG.

Point No.1:

7. The plaintiff is examined as Pw1 and chief examination was filed by way of affidavit. Pw1 testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2020 and Rs.30,000/- on 10.04.2021 for his family expenses and duly executed two promissory notes marked as Exs.A1 and A2,agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30 % and 36% per annum respectively either to Pw1 or his order on demand. Pw1 also testified that he demanded the defendant to repay the amount due under Exs. A1 and A2 but in vain. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to institute thepresent suit for recovery of money under Exs.A1 and A2 along with interest to the tune of Rs.2,26,306/- [Rs.1,75,666/- + Rs.50,640/-].

8.The defendant did not contest the matter and remained ex-parte, due to whichPw1 was not cross examined. Therefore, the testimony of Pw1 remain unrebutted.

9.This Court has no option except believing the testimony of Pw1. The oral evidence of Pw1, coupled with the Exs.A1 and A2, show that the defendant borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note in favour of Pw1. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Point No.2:

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum ofRs.2,26,306/- [Rs.1,75,666/- + Rs.50,640/-](Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Six

O.S.No.124 of 20234JCJ, ALG.

Thousand Three Hundred and Six only) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the dateof decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till thedate of realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,30,000/- [Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.30,000/-] (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only)

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade III directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of June, 2024.

Sd/-Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: MetlaGunde Rao @ Gundu Rao

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original suit promissory note dated 30.08.2020 for the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant

Ex.A2 : Original suit promissory note dated 10.04.2021 for the amount of Rs.30,000/- executed by the defendant.

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL-

Sd/-Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

OS/539/2023

Pagala Brahmam vs Kummara Chinna Venkata Subbanna

21 Jun 2024

O.S.No.539 of 20231JCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: ALLAGADDA

Present:-M.ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),Allagadda.

Dated Friday, the 21st day of June, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 539 of 2023

Between:-

Pagala Brahmam Age 68 years, S/o.Naganna, R/o.Pulla Reddy street, Allagadda Town and Taluq, Nandyal District. …Plaintiff

AND

Kummara Chinna Venkata Subbanna, Age 55 years, S/o.Gurrappa, Employee, R/o.Nandyal Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. Present working as a Head Warden, Sub-Jail, Allagadda,

Nandyal District. ...Defendant

*****

This suit is coming before me on 21.06.2024 for Consideration in the presence of Sri K.V.Subba Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,87,320/-basing on a Promissory Note, dated 20.07.2023, subsequent interest and costs for costs of the suit.

O.S.No.539 of 20232JCJ, ALG.

2.Briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, is that: the

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from the Plaintiff on 20.07.2023 in cash and executed the Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff, the

Defendant has not chosen to repay the amount due on Promissory Note to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to institute the present suit.

3. Summons were served on the defendant through court on 28.10.2023.

After receipt of summons, Sri S.Ramanaiah and Sri O.Venkataiah, Advocates filed vakalath on behalf of the defendant and the suit is coming for filing written statement.

In spite of ample opportunities, the defendant failed to file written statement and on 29.01.2024 the defendant called absent, no representation and the written statement not filed even after the expiry of mandatory period. Hence the defendant set ex-parte.

4. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1. The

Plaintiff, as P.W.1, got marked the Original suit promissory note dated 20.07.2023 for

Rs.1,80,000/-, as Ex.A1.

5. Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination are:

(i)whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

O.S.No.539 of 20233JCJ, ALG.

Point No.1:

7. The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and chief examination was filed by way of affidavit. P.W.1 testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.07.2023 for his family expenses and duly executed the promissory note marked as Ex.A1, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to Pw1 or his order on demand. Pw1 also testified that he demanded the defendant to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 but in vain.

Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit for recovery of money under Ex.A1 along with interest to the tune of Rs.1,87,320/-.

8.The defendant did not contest the matter and remained ex-parte, due to which P.W.1 was not cross examined. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.1 remain unrebutted.

9.This Court has no option except believing the testimony of P.W.1. The oral evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the Ex.A1, show that the defendant borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note in favour of P.W.1. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Point No.2:

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,87,320/- (Rupees one Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and

Twenty only) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till

O.S.No.539 of 20234JCJ, ALG.

the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh Eighty Thousand only).

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade III directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of June, 2024.

Sd/-Sri.M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Pagala Brahmam

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original Suit promissory note dated 20.07.2023 for Rs.1,80,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL-

Sd/-Sri.M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

OS/123/2021

Machannagari Venkata Rami Reddy vs Patti Sathya Sreenivasulu

21 Jun 2024

O.S.No.123 of 20211JCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::ALLAGADDA

Present:-M.ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),Allagadda.

Dated Friday, the 21st day of June, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 123 of 2021

Between:-

Machannagari Venkata Rami Reddy, Age 35 years, S/o.Subbareddy, Cultivation, R/o.PeddaChinthakunta Village, AllagaddaMandal, Kurnool District. …Plaintiff

Vs.

Patti SathyaSreenivasulu, Age 45 years, S/o.Prasad, Employee, R/o.Near Old Bus Stand, Koilkuntla Town and Mandal,

Kurnool Dsitrict. ...Defendant

*****

This Suit was coming up for final hearing on this day in the presence of

Sri B.Siva Prasada Rao, Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, set ex-parte and upon considering the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,78,000/- [Rupees Nine lakhs Seventy Eight thousand only] basing on a Promissory Note, dated 08.10.2017 for Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest and costs.

O.S.No.123 of 20212JCJ, ALG.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that :- On 08.10.2017 the

Defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Plaintiff for his family necessities and on the same day he executed the Promissory Note in favour of the

Plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the Defendant failed to repay the due amount under the Promissory Note. Hence, the Suit.

3. After receipt of summons, Sri K.SaiSwaroop, Advocate filed vakalath on behalf of the defendant and the suit is coming for filing written statement. In spite of ample opportunities, the defendant failed to file written statement and on 17.04.2023 the defendant called absent, no representation and the written statement not filed even after the expiry of mandatory period. Hence the defendant set ex-parte.

4.On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself examined as the PW1 and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked.

5. Heard the Counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the material available on record and now this Court proceeds to formulate the following Point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the Suit claim as prayed for ?

6. [a]In order to establish the contention of the plaintiff, the Plaintiff has examined himself as the PW1, and marked Exs.A1 to A3 on his behalf. As the

Defendant has remained ex-parte, it can be said that the evidence of the PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the

O.S.No.123 of 20213JCJ, ALG.

documents relied upon by the Plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the Original Suit

Promissory Note, dated 08.10.2017, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 29.12.2019 and Ex.A3 is the original returned postal cover. Since, the Defendant has remained ex-parte in the Suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendant to the effect that he had admitted the case of the Plaintiff, and that he has nothing to put-forth as a contest.

[b]Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and undiscredited evidence of the PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiff has established the Suit Pronote under Ex.A1, and the failure of the

Defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the Plaintiff is entitled for the Suit

Claim as prayed for.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

7. In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs, directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,78,000/- [Rupees Nine lakhs Seventy Eight thousand only] with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of Decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade III directly on System, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of June, 2024.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

O.S.No.123 of 20214JCJ, ALG.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1: Machannagari Venkata Rami Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is the Original Suit Promissory Note, dated 08.10.2017.

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 29.12.2019.

Ex.A3 is the original returned postal cover.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

Exparte.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

OS/200/2023

Kurakula Venkatateswarlu vs Aggennagari Siva Ramudu

21 Jun 2024

O.S.No.200 of 2023 1JCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::ALLAGADDA

Present:-M.ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),Allagadda.

Dated Friday, the 21stday of June, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 200 of 2023

Between:-

KurakulaVenkateswarlu, Age 47 years, S/o.ChinnaKondanna, Agriculturist, R/o.Gospadu Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.…Plaintiff

Vs.

Aggennagari Siva Ramudu, Age 36 years, S/o.ChinnaLingamaiah, Business, R/o.Gospadu Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

...Defendant

*****

This suit is coming before me on 21.06.2024 for Judgment in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Mouli, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,85,817/- basing on a Promissory Note, dated 16.09.2021, subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.Briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, is that: the

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,45,000/-from the Plaintiff on 16.09.2021 for

O.S.No.200 of 2023 2JCJ, ALG.

his family expenses and executedthe Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff, the Defendant has not chosen to repay the amount due onPromissory Note to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to institute the present suit.

3. Summons were served on the defendant through court on 10.06.2023.

The defendant was called absent and there was no representation on behalf of the defendant. Hence, the defendant was set ex-parte on 02.11.2023.

4. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as Pw1. The

Plaintiff, as Pw1, got marked the suit promissory note dated 16.09.2021 for

Rs.1,45,000/-, as Ex.A1.

5. Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination are:

(i)whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

Point No.1:

7. The plaintiff is examined as Pw1 and chief examination was filed by way ofaffidavit. Pw1 testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,45,000/- on16.09.2021 for his family expenses and duly executed the promissory note marked as Ex.A1,agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annumeither to Pw1or his order on demand. Pw1 also testified that he demanded the defendant to repaythe amount due under Ex.A1but in vain.

O.S.No.200 of 2023 3JCJ, ALG.

Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to institute thepresent suit for recovery of money under Ex.A1along with interest to the tune of Rs.1,85,817/-.

8.The defendant did not contest the matter and remained ex-parte, due to whichPw1 was not cross examined. Therefore, the testimony of Pw1 remain unrebutted.

9.This Court has no option except believing the testimony of Pw1. The oral evidence of Pw1, coupled with the Ex.A1, show that the defendant borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note in favour of Pw1. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Point No.2:

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum ofRs.1,85,817/-(Rupees one Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and

Seventeenonly) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the dateof decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till thedate of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh Forty Five Thousand only).

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade III directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of June, 2024.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

O.S.No.200 of 2023 4JCJ, ALG.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: KurakulaVenkateswarlu

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dated 16.09.2021 for Rs.1,45,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL-

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

Order Record 24 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/123/2021	Machannagari Venkata Rami Reddy vs Patti Sathya Sreenivasulu	21 Jun 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/124/2023	Metla Gunde Rao @ GUndu Rao vs Varada Dasthagiri	21 Jun 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/200/2023	Kurakula Venkatateswarlu vs Aggennagari Siva Ramudu	21 Jun 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/351/2022	Guda Pulla Reddy vs Pullagura Kumar Reddy	21 Jun 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/539/2023	Pagala Brahmam vs Kummara Chinna Venkata Subbanna	21 Jun 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/42/2016	Shaik Basha vs Valisabgari Chintakunta Mabu Saheb	07 May 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/260/2022	Mudimela Naga Raju kumar vs M.Farroq	29 Apr 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/445/2022	K.Seshapani vs Vannam Nageswara Rao	29 Apr 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/508/2022	Mudimela Rama Peddanna vs Mulla Gulab @ GUlabee	29 Apr 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/596/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena a Bank constituted and functioning under the Regional Rural bank act 19 vs Jammunaboiana.Prasad	29 Apr 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/627/2023	Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector , Allagadda vs MUlla Emamsaheb	28 Mar 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/30/2023	Edupuganti Krishna Rao vs Burugula Sree Ramulu	27 Mar 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/39/2021	Yerram Manohar Reddy vs Gontla Sekhar	27 Mar 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/137/2023	Gongati Chandrahas Reddy vs Bollavaram Bhaskar Reddy	27 Mar 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/382/2022	Koneti Prakasam vs Sannala Rami Reddy (died ) by Lrs.1. Sannala Maheswari	27 Mar 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/629/2023	Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector vs Penugonda Sunkamma	15 Mar 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/631/2023	Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector vs GORLA vENKATAMMA	15 Mar 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/633/2023	The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector , Allagadda vs Badegadda Chinna Moulali	23 Feb 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/634/2023	The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector , Allagadda vs Eggono Narasaiah	23 Feb 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/635/2023	The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector , Allagadda vs Mabbu Sanjeeva Kumar,	23 Feb 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/636/2023	The Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector , Allagadda vs Gonthula Narayana	23 Feb 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/653/2023	Enforcement inspector SEB, Allagadda vs Akula Nagamaddileti	23 Feb 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/654/2023	Enforcement inspector SEB, Allagadda vs BADEGALLA CHAND BASHA	23 Feb 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/655/2023	Enforcement inspector SEB, Allagadda vs JAKKA PEDDA OBULESU	23 Feb 2024	Copy of Judgment	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2024		5
May 2024		1
Apr 2024		4
Mar 2024		7
Feb 2024		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has S Abdul Rehman handled?

S Abdul Rehman has handled 24 court orders since 2023 at V Add District Complex, Allagadda. The average disposal rate is 1 orders per month.

What types of cases does S Abdul Rehman hear?

Based on available records, S Abdul Rehman primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at V Add District Complex, Allagadda.

Where is S Abdul Rehman currently posted?

S Abdul Rehman is posted as Junior Civil Judge at V Add District Complex, Allagadda, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by S Abdul Rehman available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by S Abdul Rehman are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does S Abdul Rehman dispose cases?

S Abdul Rehman disposes approximately 1 cases per month, based on 24 orders handled over their tenure at V Add District Complex, Allagadda.

Since when is S Abdul Rehman serving?

S Abdul Rehman has been serving at V Add District Complex, Allagadda since 2023.

Case Types

OS 58%

CC 42%

Posting History

Nov 2024 — Dec 2024

Junior Civil Judge
Nov 2024 — Nov 2024

Junior Civil Judge
Apr 2023 — Jul 2024

Junior Civil Judge · 24 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.S.Sailaja

Senior Civil Judge

816 orders

T.bhaskar

Junior Civil Judge

261 orders

D.Ammanna Raja

V Addl.District Judge,Allagadda

35 orders

← View all judges at V Add District Complex, Allagadda